Published AAO appeal decisions

Software development engineer in test claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, citing five criteria. AAO found he met judging and high salary criteria but abandoned other claims on appeal. Two criteria insufficient; record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim required for extraordinary ability classification.

An entrepreneur and inventor from Transnistria claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting four evidentiary criteria. The AAO affirmed the Service Center's denial, finding he failed to demonstrate nationally or internationally recognized awards or judging experience, thus falling short of the required three criteria threshold.

Technology company petitioned for CTO classified as extraordinary ability in technology entrepreneurship. SCOPS found two criteria met; AAO found judging criterion also satisfied. Decision remanded for final merits determination on sustained acclaim and top percentile status after establishing three evidentiary criteria.

A healthcare ethics and medical communication researcher in early-career stage seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding the petitioner had not established sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrated career of acclaimed work required for extraordinary ability.

Mechanical engineer self-petitioner claimed five EB-1A criteria. SCOPS found only two met (judging, scholarly articles). AAO remanded because SCOPS misidentified awards, failed to explain published material issues, and confused patent citations with article citations, preventing proper evaluation of original contributions and final merits.

Employer petitions for pain management physician with neurology research background claiming extraordinary ability. Beneficiary claimed four criteria; only two met: judging and scholarly articles. Original contributions lack concrete evidence of major significance to field; leadership roles not sufficiently demonstrated. Falls short of three-criterion threshold.

An employer petitioned on behalf of a top executive for extraordinary ability classification. The AAO withdrew the service center's previous findings on two criteria: membership and high salary. With fewer than three criteria met, the threshold initial evidence requirement failed. The AAO declined to reach final merits. Appeal dismissed.

A poet sought EB-1A classification claiming seven criteria but successfully established only one. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding that lesser awards lacked national or international recognition, membership associations did not require outstanding achievements, and overall evidence showed only isolated accomplishments, not sustained acclaim required for extraordinary ability.

Founder and CEO of an AI platform company sought EB-1A classification. Petitioner claimed seven evidentiary criteria and sustained acclaim. AAO affirmed SCOPS finding that only judging criterion was met. Venture capital funding, fellowship participation, and other claims failed because they lacked necessary recognition or expert evaluation. Appeal dismissed.

CEO and inhaled drug delivery researcher claimed EB-1A extraordinary ability, satisfying five initial evidentiary criteria. AAO held totality of evidence insufficient for final merits determination; petitioner lacked sustained national acclaim and did not demonstrate career of acclaimed work placing him among field's very top.

A business executive claimed extraordinary ability through seven regulatory criteria, including awards and scholarly articles. The AAO found he did not receive a major internationally recognized award and met fewer than three alternate criteria. The appeal was dismissed because initial evidentiary requirements were not satisfied.

Competitive swimmer seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability. AAO found one criterion met (awards) but withdrew SCOPS findings on membership and published materials; petitioner failed to establish three of ten required criteria. Final merits analysis not reached. Appeal dismissed.

Martial arts athlete sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. AAO dismissed appeal because petitioner met only one of ten criteria required as initial evidence and failed to establish national or international recognition of awards or qualifications.

Choreographer self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center found three criteria met but AAO reversed on appeal, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim or career of acclaimed work, and did not rank among the very top of the field.

General manager and founder working in advanced materials research and development. Claimed seven criteria; met four initial evidentiary requirements. AAO affirmed denial because totality of evidence did not establish career of acclaimed work or small percentage at very top of field despite meeting minimum threshold.

A founder and CEO of an AI auditing platform startup seeks EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Petitioner claimed six criteria; SCOPS found two met. AAO withdrew and remanded, finding the leading/critical role criterion additionally satisfied, but remanded for final merits determination on whether the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim and place among the very top.

ESL instructor claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. Met judging criterion only. Membership and leading role criteria rejected; published material and original contributions waived on appeal; high salary reserved. Petitioner failed three-criterion threshold, so final merits not analyzed.

A technical program manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, meeting two of ten criteria. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of extraordinary ability. Petitioner satisfied judging and scholarly articles criteria but failed to demonstrate that his original contributions had major significance or that he had national or international acclaim.

Investment fund director with eleven years in private equity and banking claimed five criteria plus comparable evidence. AAO found published material and comparable evidence (display) criteria met, satisfying the three-criterion threshold. However, on final merits, petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained acclaim or position among the small percentage at the very top of his field, so appeal was dismissed.

A music video producer and director from Ukraine claims extraordinary ability. He satisfied only two of ten evidentiary criteria, falling short of the three-criterion minimum needed. AAO dismissed appeal, holding his awards lacked national or international recognition and association membership claim unsupported.

Makeup artist self-petitioner claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A, asserting five criteria. AAO found only published material criterion met, fell short of three-criterion threshold, and found no sustained acclaim or top-tier status. Appeal dismissed.

Technology entrepreneur and CEO claims extraordinary ability in AI systems and industrial devices. Petitioner satisfied two criteria (scholarly articles, critical role) but failed to meet three required criteria. Awards claim unsupported; venture capital not a recognized prize. Membership requirements lack outstanding achievement standard. Appeal dismissed.

A teacher seeks EB-1A classification claiming awards, contributions, judging, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO found only two criteria met by the service center. It rejected awards as lacking international recognition, rejected original contributions for insufficient evidence of major significance, and declined to reach a final merits determination because the petitioner failed the threshold requirement of three criteria.

A singer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed the appeal, finding although the petitioner satisfied three initial criteria, the record did not establish sustained national or international acclaim or status among the very top singers in the field.

An information systems researcher self-petitioned for EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Although three initial criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to establish sufficient additional criteria or sustained national or international acclaim. The AAO found original contributions lacked major significance, published materials came from non-major outlets, and comparative salary evidence was absent.